Breitbart.com is on a tear of late about the dearth of conservative art. The fear is that the absence of what they see as conservative themes in popular art forms, especially television and cinema, serves to advance the slow march of Marxist tyranny.
They’re right, as far as they go. The trouble is, they don’t go far enough — and they’re going the wrong way, anyway.
To begin with, the word ‘conservative’ is useless. John McCain is a ‘conservative’ who never met a government program he couldn’t grow into a malicious monster. Rand Paul or Ted Cruz might be more ideal to Breitbart readers, but they are still, most fundamentally, advocates of a leaner, meaner style of Marxism. The great ‘conservative’ electoral cry is “Less free stuff — now with extra sneering!” I can’t imagine why anyone would expect that to sell. In fiction, in a thriller, that kind of ‘message’ would be a false-flag conspiracy: The seemingly hapless, helpless, clueless enemies of evil are actually its secret allies.
It gets worse. Much of the art would-be anti-Marxists celebrate is itself fundamentally pro-tyranny. War movies and action flicks are all about vengeance and retribution — you know, the stuff that Classical Liberal institutions exist to eliminate. Still worse, superhero adventures document the lives of pathetic wraiths who are doomed to eternal slavery in penance for their superior martial or mental prowess.
Instead of conservative versus liberal, here are some better terms for discriminating among types of art: Pro-freedom versus pro-tyranny, individualist versus collectivist, egoistic versus anegoistic. Dividing things along those much clearer lines helps to separate what liberty-seeking people might hope to see in works of art, and distinguishes the kinds of artworks that are most likely to draw people away from the tyrannical/collectivist/anegoistic ideals that dominate popular art right now.
Here is an even better dividing line: Comedy versus tragedy. By comedy I don’t mean farce but simply narratives (more…)