Why conservative can’t take over Cultural Industry(in US)?

The following is a translation of ‘保守派攻不下文化碉堡’, ‘The failure of conservatism in media industry’. It originate in the
Appledaily in 9/30/07.

ABC TV stationary just release an ‘documentary’ movie: ‘The road to 911′. Because this movie aim at attacking the ex-presidency of Clinton, it is not well receive among the cultural industry. This movie is an attempt by the conservative to extend its influence in the cultural realm. Conservative Republican insist that the Democrat haven’t done its best in the issue of national security, thereby 911 incident is the legacy of Democrat.
Of course, the conservative is aggressive both in the area of politics as well as cultural industry not just today. During the old Bush’s regime, the conservative minister of education William(?) has repeatedly stress the importance of culture: He think culture is the water which the young American live in. The dominating force in American cultural life are music, movie and media. Conservative often admit their admit in taking over the cultural industry. However, this could not overshadow the achievement of the Conservative in this arena. For instance, Fox TV is now the base of conservatism in media, Rush Limbaugh is a well-known conservative talk show host. I must add that the famous Anti-Drug Rush Limbaugh need to rehabited for his abuse of drug, and the William of ‘Family Value’ turn out to be a gamble. It is as hypocritical as they could be.
Conservative has always being aggressive in their attempt to influence the media, what make them unease is their failure in the movie industry while making some in-road into other areas like newspaper and TV. Why?
The conservative seems to think that: ‘By the result of 2004 election that 51% of American vote for their ‘mildly’ right wing stance, (exclude the possibility of election fraud) it follows that the conservative value must have some market. But why there is a lack of right wing movie in the cinema? At least half of the top twenty documentary is leaning toward political left. Is that because of cultural elite dominate the cultural industry? Or Liberalism is the historical political tendency for Hollywood?
It is justifiable to accuse that Hollywood produce cheap, sense-thrilling movie, how can Hollywood survive without selling
those kind of movie? It become ridiculous to accuse Hollywood of being left-wing when the right-wing movie could also make money. Hollywood would cooperate with anyone with any political stance if it is profitable.
To employ art as a political tool, it at least had to be entertaining before we can talk about its usefulness. What trouble the conservative is their ring-wing movie they made does not make much of an entertainment. When Hollywood made a movie about GLBT, it vividly describe the sexual act of those who wear ring in their nose, lip, eyelid. For the conservative, talking about those deviant is no differ to spread the depreciation of moral value. However, these topic is what exactly attract the audience into the movie theater because everyone is curious about them.
Secular movie is meant to reflect the real livelihood of people, and each compete for the spare time of busy citizen. Nobody would interest in what normally goes on in a happy couple’s marriage. Topics like guy love story among Conservative worker in the West would definitely attract a lot of eyeballs.
Conservatism, by definition, is to protect status quo from change. Therefore almost all documentary made by conservative is defending against something, ranging from ‘G.W. Bush; The Faith in WhiteHouse’ to ‘Breaking the Devin Code’ to ‘Micheal Moore hate America’. Only the later had enough entertainment value to differentiate it from US-Army’s ‘We want you’ advertisement. For those conservative movie made without any artistic sense nor entertainment value, it is doubtful it had any audience at all.
From perspective of entertainment as an expression of art, the point of criticism is to pound the heart of audience. Those who can made an excellent presentation of their criticism must themselves being rebellious. How is that compatible with the nature of conservatism?
That is why the conservative is always on the defense, and attacking any trend ‘after-the-fact’. When they criticize the legal union of GLBT, lesbian couple already adopt kids; when they criticize Madonna being indecency in bring the bed into the stage, Madonna already bring the Crucifixion into the stage. Diversity is the characteristic of modern society, and it is also the nature of cultural industry. I thus conclude that despite with the backing of wealthy Protestant church, they can hardly be successful in their attempt to dominant the cultural industry.

Original By: 殷惠敏
Translated By: Euler

Regards
Public Intellectual