I didn’t watch the Republican National Convention on Thursday. I didn’t watch it on Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday either. I’m a registered Democrat and a card-carrying liberal and though I like to think of myself as very open-minded, I’m fairly set in my ways politically speaking.
But as I got home from a concert Thursday night, the social media was all abuzz about Clint Eastwood and a chair. He’d lost his mind. He was spewing gibberish. Ha ha ha ha ha. Then came the viral jpegs-with-text-on-them that pass for political discourse these days. Clint as Pee-wee talking to Chairry. And so on. I’m guilty too: I shared a Snoop Dogg tweet about Mr. Eastwood that was ageist though very, very funny.
So today I did something shocking. I sat down and watched Clint Eastwood’s speech. And I’ve come away thinking that all the hubbub is somewhat misplaced.
Yes, he spoke to a chair. Mr. Eastwood was doing a comedic bit. He’s not known for comedy, nor does modern politics seem to welcome humor, so this probably threw a lot of people for a loop. From a textbook point of view, his comedy premise seemed a little off. On the one hand, he was asking the President questions which, ostensibly, Mr. Obama had no answers for. So that’s kind of funny—invisible President can’t answer these questions. But then, as the skit progressed, “President Obama” was also talking back, telling Mr. Romney and Mr. Eastwood to go fuck themselves. This was also funny, and something you’re unlikely to hear about the nominee at a Republican convention. But wait Mr. Eastwood, the President can’t speak, or he can? It was a flawed but harmless routine in my humble estimation.
Now, let’s push the chair to the side for a moment, shall we? Because I think the truly mind-blowing thing is that Clint Eastwood delivered—on the final night of the Republican convention—a pretty moderate speech. They flashed a silhouette of Cowboy Clint up on the screen, but that’s not the Clint who showed up. He seemed, dare I say it, respectful of the President (even admitting that Obama might be a nice guy), and he didn’t demonize the Democrats. He seemed confused by President Obama’s military policy, which we all kind of are. We peaceniks have wanted him to step up, and the warmongers are afraid to cheer, lest they seem, you know, “patriotic.” (Strange days indeed.) Mr. Eastwood said that politicians don’t run the country, we do. And he was talking to all of us.
Frankly, it reminded me of a time when politics seemed to be a bit more bearable. Eastwood’s basic message was, the economy is broken, this guy didn’t fix it, so let’s give someone else a chance. Though Mr. Eastwood and I aren’t in agreement, that seems like a completely reasonable point of view. I would have to add that the economy is only one part of the picture, that no one (invisible or visible) really seems to have an answer for. But on so many other important issues—healthcare, women’s rights, gay rights, energy, helping one another—we need to keep evolving. The modern GOP seems to be moving backward on many social issues. These things matter deeply to me. That’s why I’m a liberal. That’s why I’m voting for Obama. I’m not fully in step with him, not by a long shot. But he represents my hopes and dreams for a brighter America better than the GOP does.
I was talking to a friend about PETA the other night, saying how they often seem to go too far to make a point. But she said that it’s important to have people pushing extreme views, so we continue to inch the center in the right direction. That’s certainly true in politics. We get upset when our representatives don’t stand for our every idea. I still remember how heartbroken I felt when President Clinton announced welfare reform in his State of the Union address. This was a Democrat? He’d moved so much closer to the center than I was comfortable with. Obama often comes across as a centrist too, despite the far right’s painting of him as a socialist devil. But sometimes stuff gets done in the center.
Being a moderate is clearly out of step with the mainstream Republican Party these days, and I think that’s really why Clint Eastwood’s speech seemed so bizarre. All past indications point to Mitt Romney being a moderate, but he’s certainly not allowed to be one in 2012. That would be a sign of weakness. Respect doesn’t rile voters. It doesn’t earn splashy headlines, and it doesn’t increase donations.
Don’t look to me for answers. There’s a They Might Be Giants lyric that often hits close to home: “I know politics bore you.” I don’t think I’ll be watching a lot of the Democratic Convention either. Maybe Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker. I like them. And it might not be a bad idea to invite Clint Eastwood to speak. Heck, I’d be the first one to pull up a chair.
What’s amazing to me is that the Republicans allowed ANYBODY let alone a Hollywood person, have 5 minutes (Clint stretched it to 12) to speak on anything that struck his fancy. He was unscripted; no teleprompter; his message was not approved (unlike EVERYBODY else at the convention). He supposedly got the idea for the chair at the last second and asked somebody to bring him a chair moments before he went on. We’ll never see anything this “off book” again, which is a shame.
The blogosphere I visit ended up discussing his role in ‘Gran Torino’ as an “old white male racist” aka GOP. People are so movie driven these days, sad. Oh well, I’d give Gran Torino 4.5 stars yet mostly forgettable, aside from the “spooks” scene.
great entry!