Originally published December 16, 1994, in Comics Buyer’s Guide #1100
A sort of morbid incredulity has settled, for the moment, over bleeding-heart liberals such as my humble self. Even a bit of distant black humor rears its head. For instance, I was telling a group of comics fans about an upcoming development in Marvel’s futuristic “2099” line of books. I said, “Doom takes over America.” And the immediate response I got was, “Didn’t that just happen?”
But I’m not here to discuss the Nov. 7th elections in any depth because, frankly, I’m never at my best with horror stories.
What I cannot help but shake, though, is this uneasy feeling—this faint wind I’m beginning to feel wafting our way.
My personal wind sock began fluttering when someone on a computer board asked me whether I anticipated a resurgence of censorship activity aimed at comics as a consequence of the GOP triumph.
Off the top of my head, I said no. My reasons were twofold: First, it’s not like censorship is the sole province of the GOP. After all, it was Tipper Gore who cranked up the music industry over lyrics she found objectionable. And second, I figured that the GOP is going to be so busy working on the presidential campaign for 1996 that the comics industry will hardly be a top priority. After all, the November elections weren’t really a vote for the GOP; they were simply a vote against Clinton. So in 1996, when the electorate gets a chance to vote directly against Clinton, well, the Republicans would have to be complete buffoons to blow an opportunity like that. So I imagined that they had bigger fish to fry than us.
Now, though, I’m starting to think I was hasty in dismissing the notion.
I’m starting to think that 1996 may very well be the year that comics get tossed on the hotseat.
Because it’s an election year. And we might very well be elected.
Every presidential election year, the pattern has been fairly consistent. The GOP sets the tone, sets the style, plans the angles and directions. And the Democrats react. This is not a great strategy for the Dems to employ, since reactors have this nasty habit of melting down and leaving disaster in their wake that takes years to dissipate.
GOP strategists oftentimes manage to zero in on hot-button issues and non-issues that make great sound bites and polarize opinions—usually unassailably. Family values, patriotism, crime—these appeal on a gut level. And it’s not as if anyone can possibly have a comeback to them—because to point out irrelevancies or flaws is to immediately be labeled as (for instance) immoral or unpatriotic or soft on crime. The famed Willie Horton gambit was cheap and irrelevant and even racist. It also helped sink Michael Dukakis. You don’t muck with that.
But family values and patriotism per se have been done. Crime is a perennial, but the GOP can’t be in charge for the next couple of years and claim that crime is spiraling out of control. They’d make themselves look bad. My guess is that they’ll probably pull out statistics revealing that crime is, in fact, going down, and take credit for that (even if crime was already going down while the Democrats were in power.)
So the GOP will be looking for something on which candidates can hang the hats they’ll be tossing into the ring. Something that will be bulletproof. Ideally, something that will lend itself to a catchy slogan. (“Whip Inflation Now” was a memorable, if idiotic, example. And heck, they’re still using the Reagan era’s “Just Say No,” whether it makes sense or not. For instance, the local elementary school sponsored a sock hop called the “Just Say No” dance. Sounds like a promising theme: “Do you wanna dance?” “No.” “Go get some lemonade?” “No.” “Talk?” “No.” Geez, whatever happened to “Color My World?”)
With all that in mind, I’m starting to suspect what the angle for 1996 is going to be.
The youth of America.
Within a day or so of the election, Newt Gingrich was making a speech about the state of America, playing to a newly attentive audience. And part of that speech contained what I believe is a trial balloon for 1996.
I don’t have it in front of me and am working from memory—but Gingrich began to enumerate the problems facing America, the difficulties of the populace. And what he said was something to the effect of, “We have 12-year-olds getting pregnant; 13-year-olds doing drugs,” and so on, up to the age of 18.
My 13-year-old daughter, Shana, was furious when she read the accounts of the speech. “He makes it sound like everything is our fault!” she said, indignant on behalf of her age group. She was right, of course.
Pontificating on the problems of the younger generation is a time-honored, time-tested strategy. Whoever stakes out this territory has embraced a no-lose scenario, for the following reasons:
1) Parents are consistently paranoid. The world, after all, is always “worse,” never as good as it was when “we” were kids (irrespective of how much worse it really is or better it really was.) It doesn’t help that this paranoia stems from genuinely sincere feelings. What could be more loving, after all, than being concerned about the welfare of one’s children, and wanting the best for them—particularly in a world where the stakes are so much higher. Modern mind-altering substances make drugs of the 1960s look like licorice sticks, and where once unprotected sex could get you pregnant—well, now it can get you dead.
2) The previous generation is always hypercriticial of the up-and-coming. Our parents blamed us in the 1960s, just as their parents blamed them in the 1950s—and selective amnesia is usually the order of the day when it comes to one’s own conduct.
3) People under 18 can’t vote. That makes them prime and ideal targets. Think about it: If you’re tough on crime, well—criminals vote too, y’know. If you hold up single-parent families as examples of moral decay, you hack off those single mothers trying to earn a living. But my daughter’s ire doesn’t mean anything because she can’t act on it in a polling booth.
By building a political platform geared around the notion of concern for the youth of America, the GOP can encompass a dazzling variety of issues, getting first dibs on them so that the Democrats will once again come across as confused and floundering. Let’s say, for instance, that there’s a handy slogan: Save America’s Youth (S.A.Y.). Anyone who disagrees can immediately be painted as Nay-S.A.Yers.
The hypothetical S.A.Y. platform can encompass many aspects of both the right and religious right: anti-abortion (save ’em in the womb); prayer in school (logical extension of the nonsensical pledge of allegiance brouhaha that worked so well); education (Bush painted himself as the education president; he wasn’t, but people have short memories); drug programs; domestic violence and child abuse; guns in schools; violent toys (outlaw toy guns; that’s the ticket; God forbid we should outlaw real guns); and so on.
This isn’t to imply that every single aspect of such a platform would be without merit. What I’m saying is that a broad-based platform—particularly one that’s constructed upon a foundation of concern for kids—is a terrific place to be perched. Because your opponents are left with two options: They can agree with you (in which case they’re latecomers) or they can disagree with you (in which case they’re kid-haters).
Remember, though, the all-important concept of sound bites. All of the problems listed above, while they can be pontificated upon, don’t necessarily break down to convenient 10-second grabbers. Furthermore, you want to rally the people behind you. Make them feel that you’re all on the same side, working together. You want voters to be able to do something with the concern and ire you’ll be raising. Ideally if they can channel that ire, they’ll feel good, and they will credit the creators of S.A.Y. with that good feeling—and vote for them.
But how and where to channel it?
It’s tough for the average parent in the average home to do something immediate about drugs or guns or abortion. You need something quick, something handy—something they can write letters about or take direct action on and feel that they’ve accomplished something.
Two words: kids’ entertainment.
The first target will more than likely be children’s television. The more successful and more violent, the better. And better still, considering that Clinton—the enemy—can be tarred with the same brush. Can’t you just hear it now? “Look at the garbage that Bill Clinton and his show business pals are foisting on your children!”
TV is always a good lightning rod, in that parents can (a) write angry letters to sponsors and (b) turn off the set, forbidding their kids to watch Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers or whatever the hot children’s action show is that year. And in so doing, the parents can feel as if they’ve made a difference.
The only drawback is that complaints about children’s TV might smack of “same old same old.” S.A.Y.ers might want to come up with some new rabble-rousing concept.
As the song goes, everything old is new again.
It was a mere 40 years ago that juvenile delinquency and Estes Kefauver’s angling for the presidency resulted in the juvenile delinquency hearings that helped vilify comics. And I think we might very well be staring down that barrel again.
To people in the industry, comic books are a legitimate publishing forum, providing a diversity of entertainment no different from that of any other publisher.
To people outside of the industry, comic books are kids’ fare. No rational person would tell Bantam Books that it cannot publish both children’s books and adults’ books, yet that is precisely the attitude that is foisted upon comics. And that attitude is then built upon to get parents worked up. Ill-informed, agenda-ridden slam articles creep forward to pour salt into the boiling pot, and self-proclaimed experts play to the fevered concerns of paranoid parents. “Look at the garbage your kids are being exposed to in comics stores!” we hear.
Waving around an adult-oriented comic would look reeeeeeaaal good on the news. Inciting parents to police their kids’ reading habits or write complaining letters to publishers or picket their local comic book stores or burn those evil comics—all of those will play wonderfully to the masses.
Unlike television and movies, the comic book industry has no high-powered, high-profile champions. And don’t think for a microsecond that people of power in any opposing political party will go to the mat for comics. They’ll have their own problems.
The last time this happened, the industry rolled over and created the Comics Code Authority. I doubt anyone truly believes that the tattered umbrella of the CCA will provide any shelter when the rainstorm of S.A.Y. (or whatever it’s called) rolls in.
What publishers are going to have to do is decide now how they’re going to handle it. Act instead of react. When the censors come, will the industry as a whole fight for its constitutional right to publish whatever it wants? Will there be a concentrated effort to advertise, or use handy tools such as computer bulletin boards, to drive home to the average American the variety of entertainment that comics represent?
Or will there be knuckling under, or endless discussions of the joys of ratings and labels? Defensiveness and finger-pointing and cries of personal innocence in the face of a firestorm of recriminations?
Why do I have this sick feeling we’re going to find out—and this even sicker feeling that we already know the answer?
(Peter David, writer of stuff, considering the current political climate, is anticipating that soon you’ll be able to write to him c/o McDonalds, where he’ll be on view saying, “You want fries with that?” In the meantime, you can write to him c/o Second Age, Inc., PO Box 239, Bayport, N.Y. 11705.)
• 
The GOP sets the tone, sets the style, plans the angles and directions. And the Democrats react.
.
And history continues to repeat itself with no end in sight.
.
since reactors have this nasty habit of melting down and leaving disaster in their wake that takes years to dissipate.
.
Are we SURE that the timing of these reprints is coincidental?
.
With all that in mind, I’m starting to suspect what the angle for 1996 is going to be. The youth of America.
.
And that was the last time MTV contributed something useful to society, with their pushing the youth to vote. Meanwhile, certain groups are still trying to disenfranchise young voters (see: pushing more voter ID laws to punish college students) and Gingrich still thinks he has a shot to become president. Hmm.
.
At least now the CCA is dead.
since reactors have this nasty habit of melting down and leaving disaster in their wake that takes years to dissipate.
.
Are we SURE that the timing of these reprints is coincidental?
.
The previous BID reprint is dated one week earlier, so yeah, it’s just bad timing. It makes me wonder how often “meltdown” jokes and references we hear every day and not think about.
It makes me wonder how often “meltdown” jokes and references we hear every day and not think about.
.
Well, maybe it’s semantics, but while you hear/read reference to a meltdown (Hi, Charlie Sheen!), and everybody knows it refers to a nuclear reactor, you don’t often see the word reactor itself mentioned.
.
But what I should have pointed out in my original comment is that PAD’s statement isn’t correct. To say that they have a ‘nasty habit of melting down’ makes it sound as if that event is commonplace, when that is not the case at all.
.
Unless I’m mistaken, what’s going on in Japan – an actual meltdown at a nuclear reactor – is the first such event since Chernobyl.
Interesting article here on China’s nuclear plants: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/evanosnos/2011/03/chinas-nuclear-binge.html
.
Even with the news this week, if one accepts the most dire predictions from the global warming pundits it still makes more sense to go nuclear. “If China’s greenhouse emissions keep rising at the rate they have for the past thirty years, the country will emit more of those gases in the next thirty years than the United States has in its entire history.” Nuclear is pretty much their only non-greenhouse gas option.
Even with what’s going on in Japan, I support nuclear power.
.
That said, China building a bunch of nuclear power plants should scare the hëll out of everybody. One can only hope that they don’t build their nuclear reactors like they build their bridges and many other structures.
China illustrates perfectly what happens when you have total government control and no free press to watch over them. I read some pundits praising how the Chinese do things, hear politicians wistfully wish they could do thing slike China does and have to wonder what the hëll they are thinking. Never has so much human potential been held back by an inefficient bureaucracy. It may end up yet being China’s century but it will still be one that should have come much earlier.
Well, anybody who says that they want the US to be like China is somebody who should never be allowed anywhere near a position of authority. But I guess things like an intrusive (Communist) government, no freedoms, and abuse of citizens are all fine and dandy if you’re one of those in power.
Bill –
I’ve seen too many people with longing admiration both for the teocratic muslims and the Chinese communists. Makes me sick too.
.
One of the most scary things about humanity is that freedom is hard and uncertain. There is some comfort in having a powerful figure telling you what to do at all times.
“Well, anybody who says that they want the US to be like China is somebody who should never be allowed anywhere near a position of authority.” Tell that to Thomas Friedman:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/24/thomas-l-friedman-wants-us-to
.
“Well, David, it’s been decimated. It’s been decimated by everything from the gerrymandering of political districts to cable television to an Internet where I can create a digital lynch mob against you from the left or right if I don’t like where you’re going, to the fact that money and politics is so out of control—really our Congress is a forum for legalized bribery. You know, that’s really what, what it’s come down to. So I don’t—I, I—I’m worried about this, it’s why I have fantasized—don’t get me wrong—but that what if we could just be China for a day? I mean, just, just, just one day. You know, I mean, where we could actually, you know, authorize the right solutions, and I do think there is a sense of that, on, on everything from the economy to environment. I don’t want to be China for a second, OK, I want my democracy to work with the same authority, focus and stick-to-itiveness. But right now we have a system that can only produce suboptimal solutions.”
.
In fairness, he is only a columnist for the New York Times, which ain’t the position of authority it used to be. And, in equal fairness, it’s so incoherent it’s hard to take much offense to. It does amaze me though that anyone could look at China and see an alternative to politics that only produce suboptimal solutions.
.
When he’s writing, as opposed to looking like a stuttering fool on TV, he manages to get the point across:“There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.”
.
One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.”
.
Great koogly moogly.
.
“But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today… “
.
What the hëll is he smoking these days?
Bill said, ” Nuclear is pretty much their only non-greenhouse gas option.”
.
Or, they could go solar. In 2009, China produced 40% of the world’s new solar photovolotaic panels, most of which were sold to Germany. Germany, in 2009, bought 50% of the world’s new solar photovolotaic panels.
.
The US has an area in north west Texas in which we could put a network of solar panels which would generate more power than we currently spend. The method of generation would not require the highly expensive photovolotaic panels, but through a process called Concentrated Solar Power, a method patented by Nikoli Tesla nearly 100 years ago.
.
Of course, transmitting this power to, say, the north east of the country would be problematic.
.
But, according to government documents dated 2009, the US gets 3.5% of its electricity from solar power, and 78% from natural gas, coal, and oil combined.
.
I simply suggest that the US could increase its solar power production to 30% and phase out one of the three non-renewable sources.
.
There are experiments in New York to build an electrical power plant that runs off of the ocean currents. The prototype generated enough electricity to power a shoreside grocery store.
.
Currently, the US gets a lot of electricity from Hoover Dam and Niagra Falls. But, the actual btus fall in the 32% leftover from what coal, oil, and natural gas produce. That 32% is comprised of nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, and biofuel.
.
Speaking of biofuel, in America the greenhouse gasses released by decomposing garbage is treated by burning it. And, yet, no one has ever even suggested (according to my research for a school paper last semester) using that fire to boil water to generate electricity.
.
That right there is free power. We already have the facilities to burn the bio waste. We already have power plants that convert a burning fuel to electricity though steam. Just put those two together.
.
There are a lot of alternatives for both China and America. Just that most of them aren’t being talked about.
.
Theno
Theno, I like the way you think, but when I’ve researched a lot of the alternatives and cut through the hoopla, I start to see reasons why things are the way they are.
.
One pundit claimed that id the Tsunami had hit a large scale solar energy plant instead of a nuclear one, the resulting contamination from the photovoltaic cells would have poisoned the ocean for hundreds of years. true or false, I don’t know, but I’ve seen the law of Unitended Consequences enough to not dismiss the point.
.
I like the using garbage gasses idea but I’d like to know if it is feasible. If you take all the gasses produced daily that would be an impressive number–but of course they are not all in one place. An individual landfill may not produce enough to justify the cost (and energy usage) to build an electric plant on it. collecting and transporting the gasses may work but again, we don;t want to use 10 gallons of gasoline to produce the equivalent of 5 gallons.
.
And even with some tried and true tech, like wind and bicycle paths, you get people protesting when it’s in their backyards. check out http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/weekinreview/13nimby.html?_r=1&ref=science for the sad story of how even supposedly liberal enclaves balk at any green development ideas that might in some small way inconvenience them, or even just change the view from their expensive homes.
Rush thought so, too.
What’s changed and what hasn’t is the Republican use of fear. Back when PAD’s column appeared, it was fear for/of the children, which I don’t think will be used this year. (Most of the animated series I can think of are aimed at adults — FAMILY GUY, FUTURAMA, BOB’S BURGERS, THE SIMPSONS (how many weed jokes were done last night, with Cheech & Chong?), SOUTH PARK — and there’s little call to censor them.) This time, the fear is: a black U.S. presi– I mean, the scary black secret Muslim-socialist who isn’t a citizen and wants to destroy us all. AIEEEEE!
What hasn’t changed is the architect of fear: Newt Gingrich. Back in the ’90s he was out to destroy Clinton for the unforgivable sin of an extramarital affair — until Newt’s own affair came to light (not to mention several divorces, including telling one soon-to-be ex-wife he wanted a divorce while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery). Now he’s pitching the Birther conspiracy theories, and all that entails. He even partly attributed his affairs to his patriotism, while talking about his God being a forgiving one (though not to his enemies, apparently).
What I wonder is how/if the Republicans will survive this election. As Bill Maher predicted, to get the nomination the Repubs are embracing the Birthers, seeing who can attack Obama the most vehemently, and basically hyping their social and ideological credidentials. But what happens when they have to leave Fox News and face a public that doesn’t think of the “lamestream media” and who recognizes that Obama is an American? How do they go through primaries talking about banning abortion and repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — and then face a public that isn’t as one-sided as they are? Can a monderate make it through the primaries? Can an extremist survive the general election? Or, as someone wondered, is the fear that Obama is unbeatable so real that only the crazies are the ones willing to run?
Fear that Obama is unbeatable? With unemployment and the overall economy stagnant at best? With all that is going on in the world? With talk of $5 a galon gas?
.
While it would be pur folly to feel Obama is sunk at this point, it is just as ludicrous, if not moreso, to claim that he is unbeatable.
yeah, he’s by no means unbeatable, though I would give him at least a 60/40 likelihood of winning, maybe 65/35. It would be a lot closer to 50/50 if any of the likely candidates for the GOP were better. The charismatic ones are too green and the seasoned ones have too little charisma. Or are just unelectable.
.
Given what I suspect is coming down the pike I’m not sure winning the 2012 election will be much of a win for whatever party gets it, but of course there are other considerations, like getting to probably choose a few Supreme Court members.
.
so…yeah, 65/35. But if Obama doesn’t start showing some signs of life soon…wars, revolts and Asian Armageddon and the president is picking basketball brackets…it’s like he isn’t even going through the motions of caring.I knew we weren’t getting the second coming of JFK (Obama’s gift for speech was always overrated, he just seemed great compared to Bush) but c’mon!
Bill,
“yeah, he’s by no means unbeatable, though I would give him at least a 60/40 likelihood of winning, maybe 65/35.”
.
60/40 is probably right – at this moment. I feel those odds will increase if he keeps looking small in relation to events (oil spill, Mideast uprisings, Japan) out of his control. Or, of course, if we get a double dip. Or he keeps making idiotic statements like being President of China would be easier.
.
“It would be a lot closer to 50/50 if any of the likely candidates for the GOP were better. The charismatic ones are too green and the seasoned ones have too little charisma. Or are just unelectable.”
.
No side ever thinks their candidates are good. When Gore, Dukakis, Gephardt, etc. were fighting for the right to challenge Bush Senior people were lamenting where all the “charismatic leaders” like (sigh) JFK, RFK, MLK had gone.
.
In ’92, big names were scared off because Bush Senior was coming off a peak 91 percent approval rating. So little-known Paul tsongas squared off against small-state, very young governor Bill Clinton and “has been” Jerry Brown showed he still had some political life in him (haha).
.
Even in 2008, people scoffed at both Hillary and Obama’s experience and many considered them unelectable either because of unfamiliarity, high negative ratings, being black, being female, etc.They seem to have done pretty well.
.
To sum it all up, one never knows. Thing is, the “too green” argument can be short-circuited by pointing to Obama and saying “I have/had just as much experience as he had. Those who seem too experienced/stale can point to Obama and say “This is what happens when you elect someone who needs on-the job training. I’ve proven myself as blah-blah-blah and have the recored to show, etc.”
.
“Given what I suspect is coming down the pike I’m not sure winning the 2012 election will be much of a win for whatever party gets it, but of course there are other considerations, like getting to probably choose a few Supreme Court members.”
.
People said the same thing about 2008. What/ Are candidates supposed to wait until things are hunky dory to run. There is always huge s–t coming down the pike. Our entitlement chickens and deficit chickens coming home to roost ensure we will face great challenges at home for a long time. That’s why we need LEADERS.
.
And the Supreme Courst is so, so important.
.”so…yeah, 65/35. But if Obama doesn’t start showing some signs of life soon…wars, revolts and Asian Armageddon and the president is picking basketball brackets…it’s like he isn’t even going through the motions of caring.I knew we weren’t getting the second coming of JFK (Obama’s gift for speech was always overrated, he just seemed great compared to Bush) but c’mon!”
.
JFK was pretty overrated too.
Hw was but he had that certain quality that you either have or you don’t. And whatever else you can say about him, he took the job and its power very seriously. It’s a funny thing with Obama, I almost get the feeling like he sees the presidency as just another step toward…well, what? That’s as good as it gets. Is he thinking that it will suck to be a young man still and have reached the pinnacle too early?
.
I just don;t get it–he has the gifts to do the things I think most people would really like about being president–speaking words of wisdom and inspiration and having them last for the rest of history. But other than when he’s running for something we aren’t getting much of that. 2 years of listening and I think I’d have to say that Bill Clinton was a way better speaker, better leader. I didn’t expect that.
“After all, the November elections weren’t really a vote for the GOP; they were simply a vote against Clinton. So in 1996, when the electorate gets a chance to vote directly against Clinton, well, the Republicans would have to be complete buffoons to blow an opportunity like that.”
.
And, history repeats itself.
.
The GOP continues to assume that their victory last November was a vote for them, not a vote against Obama. So, they will push thier agenda of breaking down unions, cutting women and children’s services, cutting schools and infrastructure, giving subsidies to corporations, and generally increasing the divide between the Top 2 and the Bottom 98.
.
And, I predict that they’ll be as surprised in 2012 when Obama retains as they were in 1996 when Clinton did.
.
Theno
In fairness, the Republicans managed to win back the House, and a lot of the Senate, by pushing the message of jobs and cutting spending. Unfortunately, once they got in they focused on the areas Theno pointed out, above, and not creating more jobs or reducing the deficit. I think it’ll really come back to haunt them.
Of course.
That’s what Republicans (at least since Nixon) do.
I’ve been trying to figure out which of your predictions actually played a part in the 1996 election, but as it turns out, I can’t remember anything about Dole’s campaign issues. I guess it’s no surprise that he lost, with such a memorable campaign.
.
By the way, it’s great to see Peter David writing Spider-Man again, even if it’s only a guest appearance. And best of all is Jameson’s appearance. For some reason, the new X-Factor is the first time I’ve seen Jameson as Mayor outside of the Spider-Man titles. I would’ve thought it would be a bigger deal impacting a lot of Marvel series. (Of course, there’s a lot of them that I don’t read, so maybe he has been playing a part.)
It looks like the next issue is going to have the Black Cat. Hooray! You probably write her better than anyone. You were the one who made her a decent character again after Mantlo and Milgrom made her all clingy and whiny.