Redstate

The idea that South Park is conservative in any sense of the word.  Really South Park is just disruptive of a very liberal, PC establishment that oozed its way over the national psyche during the Clinton years.  But it fundamentally is a cartoon for adults, or I guess I should say people who live in a state of perpetual arrested development, and who object to being censored because they know how to say FCUK.  

I remember South Park at its first debut, when people in marketing firms were proud that they had signed cels from the original series to hang on their walls, and do you know what?  Those people were potty-mouthed and pretty twisted up too.  Aside from making fun of political correctness and Barbra Streisand, South Park doesn't inform my political views very much at all.  And I don't think its creators would want it to, because it's just a cartoon.  And Trey Parker and Matt Stone (I think I got that right) are a couple of clowns.  Successful clowns, but clowns nevertheless.  They're just the kids who could never sit still in class, and in a sense you can say, "God bless them, because in America even those two miscreants can become millionaires," but basically the whole series isn't as inspired (or as well informed) as the Simpsons, and although it's funny occasionally, I wouldn't recommend it to my five year old over a good Disney classic.  Truth is that it's a piece of glorified crap.

Malkin wrote:

As liberal New York Times columnist Frank Rich points out, South Park "holds the record for the largest number of bleeped-out repetitions (162) of a single four-letter expletive in a single television half-hour."

In fact, as viewers of the show are aware, those 162 usages of a word that rhymes with "spit" were un-bleeped.

I think your review is absolutely accurate in every way.

Obviously not in the "Everybody Loves Raymond" sense (btw, Patricia Heaton is a very articulate Hollywood conservative, and I'm surprised the movement hasn't made more use of her).  

It's really more like that obnoxious libertarian next door who always has a snide, "hobgoblin of small minds" consistent answer to everything.  

I'm a big fan of the show, and it can be very smart, but given that the show explicitly makes fun of both political parties on numerous occasions, it's hard to call it conservative.  I have a number of card-carrying liberal friends who love it - these are people who generally hear the word "conservative" and run the other direction.

Also agree with previous poster - The Simpsons is just better TV.  And lets not fool ourselves into thinking that adult cartoons lean right in general - the Simpsons cuts both ways, and Family Guy is hardcore, Rhode Island/Massachusetts left.    

... and that's homosexuality.  I think this is the great miracle of the show, that it has taken a clear position over the years, and in the under-appreciated South Park movie, that homosexuality is wrong - and hasn't been murdered by the liberal Hollywood establishment.

From the swishy celebrity Big Gay Al, to the aforementioned NAMBLA storyline, to the most direct example - Satan himself is gay in the SP movie, a passive-aggressive b*tch to Saddam Hussein ... the show's tone toward gays has been one of mocking disapproval (at best).  Not that there's anything wrong with that!

It's always been fascinating to me that my gay friends haven't picked up on this.

the show's tone toward gays has been one of mocking disapproval (at best)

As a social conservative, that doesn't really fit my viewpoint at all.

I think you'll find Heaton more of a pro-lifer than a movement conservative. If so, the pro-life movement (especially Feminists for Life) have put her talents and visibility to great use.

And an avowed Biblicist, I am gratified to hear that you do not condone or approve of the mocking disapproval of gays.  It would be of further interest to me to nail down specificaly whether it is the mocking or the disapproval aspect, or perhaps just the combination, with which you take issue.

Regards.

The original Big Gay Al message was one of inclusion--remember he convinces Stan, and the community, to accept his dog as he was.

The NAMBLA episode distinctly made the point over and over that pedophilia, not homosexuality, was wrong.

And as much as they like to poke fun at flaming queers, they are accepted as a part of the community and for what they are.  And even when some supposedly hetero characters have gay encounters (remember when Gerald and Randy masturbate together in the hot tub) nobody thinks it is a big deal.

The show is as popular in gay circles as it is everywhere else.

Big Gay Al was particularly popular in the gay community when he was first introduced because he was such an over-the-top stereotype that you just had to laugh at him.

Part of what makes the show funny is that all the adult characters are just walking stereotypes of one group or another.

are the closeted macho gay characters.  It has been implied at least once that supermacho Jimbo, and by extension his best friend Ned, are gay.  When Mr. Garrison finally came out he was in the bar and discovered he could say "fag" without it being bleeped out, because it was no longer an insult because he was one now.  Jimbo replied, "that's not fair, I want to be able to say "fag" without out it being bleeped out too." The whole bar sat there in stunned silence as they realized that it hadn't been bleeped out.

They made a big deal about it afterward.

Heh.

South Park is far more libertarian than conservative.

"South Park is far more libertarian than conservative."

That's basically all there is to it.

But that's because I think South Park is really about skewering everybody almost equally.  And the Mecha Streisand episode is my favorite one -- I'll admit to that guilty pleasure.  The genius of South Park, such as it is, is that it makes a bunch of pre-adolescent kids the vehicle for its insults, putdowns and slurs -- so nobody can take it too seriously or really be offended by it, especially if the writers throw in something redemptive after all the slime.  Jerry Springer is pretty good at that, too.  After the trailer trash beats itself up for the cameras, Jerry ascends to the throne and gives us all his Words of Healing.

I guess if you enjoy watching profane, wisea** kids and you're a grown-up or a boomerang adult who finds themself living with their parents again at age 30, I guess you might like South Park.  For me, the bloom is off the rose -- it's one of those things that I no longer find very funny.  But hey, besides, that's the way kids really talk now anyway, so who needs the show?  FWIW, if Bob Guccione ran a TV network I think South Park would probably run in the 7:00 a.m. time slot, just in time for the kids before they go off to school.

Just my $0.04

I agree, South Park cuts both ways. It's just anti-P.C, anti-hypocrasy, anti-establishment. To call it "conservative" because it cuts on liberal ideals is just as wrong as calling it "liberal" because it cuts on Bush, the Iraq war, or the rise of conservative media.

It's just a cartoon. Funny, yes. One I like, yes. But just a cartoon.

But the moral lesson of that show was that excessive cursing is in bad taste.  Sure, they made fun of the idea that cursing is instrinsically evil as well, but they were counting the "spit" words to make a point: there's a good reason why society dissaproves of cursing in public and I'd have to watch the show again to tell what it was, but there you go.

the show that wallows in foul language and a team that have produced two movies that are full of foul language (did you count how many times the "f" word was used in the first ten minutes of Bigger, Longer, Uncut) make the "moral lesson that excessive cursing is in bad taste."  Next you'll be telling us that Matt and Trey really believe that Mormons are the only religion that "have it right" and are going to heaven.

... is the only one of the three that consistently makes me laugh out loud.  (And I'd rephrase "The Simpsons is just better TV" to "The Simpsons was ...."*  It has really slid the last two years, IMHO.)

I agree with the other posters that "South Park Conservative" is a misnomer, at best.  

We should all recognize that SP is a libertarian show that mocks the religious right as much as flaming gays, hollywood liberals, and pretty much everyone else.

There are many Young Republicans who see the show as a welcome refuge from a liberal campus atmosphere and would probably be proud to say they are "South Park Republicans."  By twisting that into South Park Conservative, I believe the author is trying to fit the show into his thesis.  The libertarian Republican contigent is not huge, but they are concentrated in the younger generation and they are disproportionately fans of this show.  I think SP serves the same purpose as the Daily Show just for a different segment of the population.

Randy makes a big deal about it, worrying he is gay.  He then blurts out a confession to the whole party and it turns out everyone has had a similar experience and could care less.

Mocking of any class of people (except the class that I like to call "the Mainstream Media") doesn't really fit my definition of what a conservative is. The mocking of individuals, as it is deserved, is another matter entirely, but since this is a touchy subject lately, I'll pass on further elaborating.

As far as disapproval, I do disapprove of homosexual behavior. On the other hand, I disapprove equally of extramarital sexual promiscuity. To say that I have disapproval of homosexuals as people does not fit my definition of conservative either.

homosexuals are celibate you don't have a problem with them, its just that fact they are having sex outside of marriage that bothers you?

Listen, we all have the demons that haunt us in this life. For some people, the compulsion to drink to excess is overwhelming to the point of being crippling - for others, it's absolutely no temptation at all. For some, the temptation to engage in sexual intercourse outside of marriage (with members of either the same sex or the opposite) is likewise a powerful temptation, whereas not so much for others.

What defines our success at being Christians is not that we have no demons, it's that we conquer the demons that we have.

And that really is the underlying secret of South Park's success, and believe me -- I know that it was a very timely response to a very real restriction of thought.  You've never seen a liberal law dean censor the exam of a Marxist professor because a lesbian complained about the wording of questions, but I have witnessed that ridiculous spectacle firsthand.

Still, I would caution Young Republicans to view it as something irreverant and mocking, and not elevate anything they hear on South Park to the level of including it in a paper.  As entertainment, it's fine.  But it's not a Republican cartoon, it's not a Conservative cartoon either, and the way that it portrays various groups of people can easily come back to bite them if they decide to use South Park as an example of how they think, and they shouldn't do that any more than they would use one of P.J. O'Rourke's old pieces in National Lampoon in a footnote, unless they were writing a thesis about comedy in America.  

I assume you do not support marriage for homosexual couples thereby placing them in an untenable position of having no way out.  

Is homosexuality then, a demon to be conquerd regardless of the emotional commitment?

Or is there no such thing?

And it's no more tenable of a position than being an alcoholic - it's not "untenable", it's just very difficult. To suggest that the homosexual has an absolutely insurmountable cross to bear is a slap in the face of those who are born into, say, extreme poverty, or abusive families, or those upon whom the burden of caring for a chronically ill person falls. Everyone in life has burdens that they must bear.

In considering matters like this, I am reminded of the words of Paul, a man who spent the greater part of his life being beaten, mistreated, humiliated and/or in prison:

2 Cor 4:8-18

We are hard pressed on every side, yet not crushed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed-- 10 always carrying about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. 11 For we who live are always delivered to death for Jesus' sake, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. 12 So then death is working in us, but life in you. 13 And since we have the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, "I believed and therefore I spoke," we also believe and therefore speak, 14 knowing that He who raised up the Lord Jesus will also raise us up with Jesus, and will present us with you. 15 For all things are for your sakes, that grace, having spread through the many, may cause thanksgiving to abound to the glory of God.

16 Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day. 17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, 18 while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

NKJV

the vast majority of people in this country (90% + ) have sex outside of marriage and I would imagine the vast majority of people in this country consider consensual sex between adults (at least heterosexual adults) a normal part of a mature loving relationship, whether the couple is married or not, you must be pretty disappointed with the moral state of this country.

That must be carried? or is the burden more accurately described by the attitude and discrimination practiced against homosexuals by such as yourself.

I take solace only in the fact that we're doing better than France. :-)

that I have some sort of poor attitude toward homosexuals on the basis of what I've said thus far, that's your issue, not mine.

And if you also think that hearing the kind of thing I've said in this thread constitutes some kind of terrible burden on anyone, then you must have a rather dim view of the psychological constitution of most homosexuals. Again, your issue, not mine.

I can't comment. The original question was asking for my perception, from which I answer from my worldview as a Christian. Perhaps you'd care to comment from a Jewish perspective yourself?

I haven't gone through the episodes to check, but on my own impressions and based on things Trey & Matt have said (things like "we mock everyone, but we really hate the liberals"), I'd guess that liberals probably get mocked more than conservatives.  I'll run through the episodes at some point and post a summary.

I was just repeating what they said at the end of the show.  The bit where they say, "You see, I learned something today..."  Find it credible or don't; either way it ain't my show.  But in their defense I will say that there is no taboo against cursing in an NC-17 movie (or maybe it was just R, either way the point stands) but there is a taboo against cursing on the public airwaves.  That was the point of the show.

Jews disagree.  Most branches of Orthodox Judaism believe more or less as it appears that you do, while Conservative and Reform Jews tend to be more accepting (my Conservative synagogue performs commitment ceremonies).  

My larger point was that, in a free and pluralistic society, it is highly unwise to make public policy with regard to sensitive issues based on what it means to be a good Baptist, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Jew, atheist, or Hindu.  

This cuts both ways.  The object is to find a public policy that is accommodating to people who think gays should repent and people who think they should be permitted to marry.  As the number of young people who believe the latter (or something close to it) increases, the consensus is going to shift in that direction.

If you will peruse up the thread, the poster asked whether I approved of "mocking" or "disapproval" of gays - to which I responded that I didn't approve of mocking at all, and I didn't approve of the disapproval of them as persons, but did disapprove of the lifestyle. That's hardly a public policy point, that's a personal value judgment. I don't know really a lot of people (certainly not me) who are arguing, based on that value judgment, that homosexual behavior should be made illegal.

is "I hate conservatives but I really f***ing hate liberals."

FWIW, Matt is a registered Republicans and Trey is a registered libertarian.

Just make sure that whatever arguments made, then, about the crazy judiciary imposing crazy ideas on the rest of us don't include Lawrence v. Texas.

is concerned, tolerance toward homosexuals is not in dispute.  I don't believe any reasonable person is advocating the persecution of homosexuals.  Gays pay taxes like everyone else and should be afforded the same rights.  Yet, the effects of re-defining marriage are dangerous to our society.  And the slippery slope toward sexual practices which are still considered taboo constitute the major gripe with judges for most cultural conservatives.  Not only the direction of their decisions, but that it's not their purview to make them which leads to the frustrations you describes as:  

"...the crazy judiciary imposing crazy ideas on the rest of us..."

BTW, I would like to reiterate the earlier point made by macho nachos that Christians love homosexuals.  And yes, it's a hard teaching to ask gays to forego sex or try to re-orient themselves sexually.  Many, if not most of them will never be able to do this.  But they will be forgiven, just as hetero's are forgiven, by the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

I know of no major religion which condones homosexuality and very few minor ones which do.  Rest assured, however, that if the Judeo-Christian ethic does not inform our laws, something worse will.

My opposition to Lawrence was solely based on the federal encroachment on the state-reserved power to determine morality within the state (see the U. S. Constitution and reserved powers). I'm a silly federalist that way.

I don't agree that homosexual sodomy should be made illegal, but I am in agreement with Thomas that it was a silly law that the legislature (of Texas) should have repealed, not the SCOTUS.

there is a serious problem with getting any legislative body to repeal any law, no matter how unpopular or absurd it may be in principle. That's we get stuck with things like the mohair subsidy long after there is no longer even a shred of practical argument for such a thing. The problem is usually that there's some small group that cares very intensely about maintaining a law while the opposition is much more difuse. Good case in point: the old 55 mph speed law. This was probably the most violated law in American history and the public simply hated it by a huge margin. But on one hand we had the anti-car lefties and on the other hand a lot of local governments for whom freeway speedtraps had become a lucrative cash cow, and so the law stuck long after the immediate justification for it (the 73 oil embargo) was gone. And it took the Reagan administration years to finally force Congress to repeal the law.

So as a pragmnatist I find I like having an alternate way to get rid of bad or silly laws since our elected representatives all too often lack the spine to do the job themselves.

and some of the more liberal Jewish Sects to name two.  Also the unitarians

And, for what it's worth, you won't find any comments by me here (or elsewhere) blowing my top about Lawrence. Practical considerations aside, I'm just a stickler for the belief in doing things in constitutional ways.

However, I'm also enough of a realist to recognize that those days are long gone.

...as well, I believe.

With all the concern/hysteria over the "South Park" wing of the conservative movement, I think something is being ignored: Specifically, how the "South Park conservatives" have the potential to make the conservative movement stronger.

• They are politically incorrect, but their political incorrectness is based on humor, not vitriol.  It is a likeable form of political incorrectness that gets a lot more results than other methods.
• They cut to the chase.  They don't tolerate any bull.  They will give their opinion straight on, and expect the same.
• They have no problems taking or lampooning their allies if their allies set themselves up for it.  In essence, they can serve as a "check" when other elements of the conservative movement get out of hand/line.  Trey Parker and Matt Stone once lampooned George Clooney when he did something worth lampooning.  "South Park conservatives" will do the same thing to other conservatives, often without fear.  This last part probably makes other conservatives uncomfortable - often because there are times when they deserved to be lampooned, criticized, or even asked some very tough/uncomfortable questions.

A lot of these "South Park" conservatives have a great deal in common with conservatives on a number of issues.  We just happen to be more libertarian on things like pop culture (if you don't like the show on TV, just change the channel - you're still free to do so) than the average conservative.

Finally, on the whole "pandering" thing... maybe, just maybe, the South Park conservatives just simply came to a different conclusion about pop culture than Michelle Malkin did, and have no problems saying so.  Quite frankly, the notion that I am pandering when I say, "I'm conservative, and I like South Park," is insulting.

...and the UCC are denominations of Christianity, not religions.  The Jewish sects are just that as well, sects of a major religion, not religions in themselves.  The religions of Christianity and Judeaism by and large believe homosexual behavior is a sin.

Unitarian Universalism split from Christianity a while back (at least officially).  Here is the wikipedia page on UUs.  I can't speak about the other religions/sects.

Homer on Unitarianism: "If that's the one true faith, I'll eat my hat."

You are still awesome, Doverspa.

in my view from reading the book is that a lot of younger conservatives today while supporting the basic values of conservatives in the GOP as a whole, also have less problems with same sex marriage, pre-marital sex, swearing and partying.  They want to be viewed as less stern and square than the archtype conservative has been protrayed as in the Party and in society in general.  

While the tone of the show is part of the book, the more important part is the demographic who would portray themselves as SPCs.