Mike Huckabee’s Family Guy Values[8 January 2008] The bass-playing presidential hopeful from Arkansas loves pop culture and Chuck Norris. Has Huckabee made irony the stalking horse for social conservatism?
By Aaron McKainWalking across the campus of my Midwestern university last year, I spotted a phalanx of sorority girls wearing matching T’s embossed with Greek letters and Chuck Norris’s face, along with a list of Chuck Norris Facts (“There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.”; “There is no chin under Chuck Norris’ beard. There is only another fist.” And so on). Catching up to a honey-haired straggler, I asked her if she knew who Chuck Norris was. She didn’t. Well, I asked, why was she wearing a picture of Mr. Norris’s head? Her reply was that it was funny. Curious, but trying not to come off as a total creep, I again asked why. She stopped, noticed me for the first time, and in a helpful tone usually reserved for giving directions to the elderly, stated that “It’s called college humor” and that “kids her age” like it. If her delivery hadn’t been so painfully earnest, I’d swear she was being ironic. It’s fitting if this sounds like a parable, because it is Baptist minister turned Arkansas governor turned insurgent presidential candidate Mike Huckabee who has been reaping the story’s lesson. Hot off an Iowa Caucus victory, Huckabee’s poll numbers are ascending, and while pundits and reporters credit his surge to strong debate performances and evangelicals’ skepticism about Mitt Romney, they also can’t resist noting another possible cause: Chuck Norris. Not only is Norris, the martial-arts guru and also-ran 1980s action hero, currently on the campaign trail for Huckabee in New Hampshire, but the Chuck Norris Facts were the focal point of Huckabee’s first television ad, an ad which the candidate himself credits for infusing his campaign with the much-needed cash and media cachet that have fueled his rise. Lowbrow, or at least low-wattage, celebrity presidential endorsements are nothing new. Today, Ron Paul has the deflated Baywatch bombshell Donna D’errico stumping for his brand of neo-isolationism; once upon a time, Lee “Six Million Dollar Man” Majors supported Jimmy Carter and the Chicago Cubs shilled for Warren Harding. But in a TMZ.com era where exposing the manufacture of celebrity is as popular as celebrity itself, Huckabee’s ironic acknowledgement of Chuck Norris’s dubious bona fides (“My plan to secure the border?” Huckabee has said. “Two words: Chuck Norris.”) stands as an innovation: a presidential candidate embracing 21st-century Family Guy values. ![]() As anyone who’s watched Family Guy knows, Fox’s syndicated animated series is ostensibly the story of suburban blow-hard Peter Griffin but is really just an excuse for creator Seth MacFarland to spew forth non sequiturs about the movies and TV shows of his childhood. Among the college students I teach, Family Guy seems almost sacred, a universally agreed-upon touchstone of what constitutes comedy gold. But the paradox of Family Guy‘s popularity is that MacFarland is 34-years-old and his show’s rabid fans are a full generation younger, a cultural chasm that raises an obvious question: Why would kids who’ve never seen Scarecrow and Mrs. King or Diff’rent Strokes—or Chuck Norris, for that matter—think references to such pop culture detritus are interesting, let alone funny? There are two explanations. The cynical answer is that we live in a postmodern hell, wherein cultural references not only do not need to mean anything but purposely shouldn’t if they want to be perceived as cool. This view helps explain runway supermodels in Iron Maiden sweatshirts and the names of most of the fledging indie-rock bands on MySpace. This answer is very depressing. The more optimistic answer, however, is that such references supply synthetic camaraderie. It goes like this: Even if the average Family Guy viewer doesn’t know enough Magnum, P.I. minutiae to follow a spoof of it, they know that some segment of Family Guy‘s millions of viewers must hold this trivia in their heads or the joke wouldn’t air. So those who catch the references get to say “Hey, I totally remember wasting my childhood watching Magnum, P.I..” And for those who don’t catch the references, the awareness that this Magnum, P.I. moment of cultural communion is occurring for someone somewhere makes Magnum, P.I. a bit of 20th-century folklore now worth knowing and sharing, even if that knowledge runs no deeper than the equally community-forming mention of the show on Family Guy. The Faustian bargain of synthetic camaraderie is that all these pop-culture references become empty and interchangeable: the actual TV show Magnum, P.I. doesn’t matter any more than the actual Chuck Norris does, which is why the 50,000 mythmaking Chuck Norris Facts were originally Vin Diesel Facts and could just as easily be Tom Selleck or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Facts tomorrow. ![]() This tension between meaning and meaninglessness is what lets Huckabee use the now-canonized irony of “Chuck Norris” (patron saint of college humor and Mountain Dew) to earnestly accept an endorsement from Norris (washed-up B movie actor and junior varsity bible-thumper) and leverage it for more mainstream media attention. It also makes Norris’s endorsement bulletproof. You can’t critique Huckabee for touting Norris’s support because his wink-wink ad preemptively admits how absurd it is to have the star of Sidekicks and Top Dog as your guiding political light. Even better, the Norris endorsement earns Daily Show-caliber hipster cred by celebrating the vacuity of all celebrity endorsements, thereby vitiating any criteria by which reporters and pundits could point out that Norris’s endorsement may be the most vacuous of all. Academically speaking, the irony of Huckabee’s use of irony is that literal readings of texts are the bread and butter of populist Christianity: the Bible (and likewise the Constitution) means what it says, no exceptions. But the real problem is that irony is both exclusionary and audience specific. While Family Guy’s simultaneous reanimation and mauling of The Facts of Life is fairly benign, in light of Huckabee’s cultural warrior past, his multipurposing of Chuck Norris is considerably less so. As David Corn of Mother Jones has pointed out, Huckabee’s calls for political unity in 2007 belie his calls in 1992 that AIDS patients should be quarantined or in 1998 that women should submit to their husbands and that homosexuality and necrophilia are morally equivalent. Using Norris as part of this Janus-faced repackaging means laughing at either the presumably not arch-conservative co-eds who use Chuck Norris as a badge of cool or at the millions of folks who are sincerely revved up by Delta Force or sincerely inspired by Norris’ Christian conversion. No matter how you slice it, the joke is on one of them. The joke is on Norris as well, insofar as it appears to be lost on him. Asked facetiously by barelypolitical.com whether Walker, the fictitious Texas Ranger Norris played on TV, would run for president, Norris answers that “he”—the flesh and blood Norris—isn’t interested. And responding to his newfound popularity, Norris writes in his column at WorldNewsDaily, a conservative website, that “I’ve got a bulletin for you, folks. I am no superman.” He then tells of his own superman, Jesus Christ, who, in Norris’ conception, has some amazing facts of his own: tears that cure cancer, a Darwin-defying list of creatures He has allowed to live, a penchant for kicking ass, and an oddly anachronistic commitment to the Second Amendment. In the face of such messianic modesty, you sort of stop wondering where Huckabee’s audience developed their taste for tall tales of benevolent, bearded outlaws. In trying to apprehend the appeal of the Huckabee candidacy, New York Times columnist David Brooks noted in a 04 January op-ed that the Arkansas governor was our first “ironic evangelical”: “funny, campy…and not at war with modern culture.” This may be true, but as the primary season wears on, it’s worth remembering that the Late Night With Conan O’Brien sketch that re-canonized Chuck Norris as an ironic god in the pop-culture pantheon consisted of the show mocking a clip of Walker, Texas Ranger in which a small boy casually announces to an elderly couple, “Walker told me I have AIDS.” The scene is both horrifying and hysterical—doubly so when you realize that Chuck Norris is so ridiculous that he makes children with AIDS seem momentarily hilarious. Given that Huckabee’s own views on AIDS (and women and homosexuality) are so preposterous that he manages somehow to come across as ridiculous rather than horrifying, the governor should hope that our culture’s love affair with Family Guy-esque absurdity continues through the primary season. The rest of us can simply hope that now that the age of irony has been officially embraced by two of the least cool things on Earth—presidential politics and fundamentalist Christianity—its end is finally upon us. If Chuck Norris pulls that off, it’ll be a fact worth remembering. ![]() |
|
Comments
Huckabee will definitely garner most of the votes out of Middlewrestlemaniasex…The 3 pronged attack of Nugent (Rock and Hunt Music), Norris (Fine Cinema and small pockets of the red-neck
Asian population) and Ric Flair (the large contingent of copulating regular unleaded red-necks) might be nigh un-stoppable. The only question remaining is when the inevitable usage of “I Heart Huckabee” will rear it’s head. The only way he’ll get my vote is if he re-enacts the David O. Russell blow up with Lily Tomlin using Flair (with bangs) as Dustin Hoffmann, himself as O.Russell and Norris as Tomlin in drag, but with beard. I don’t give a damn who plays Schwartzmann.
Youtube the sumbitch and I’ll at least consider him a viable post-ironic pre-nihilo quasi meta uber candidate.
Comment by Julius RVing from South — January 8, 2008 @ 11:26 am
What a clever fellow you are. Rarely have I found a writer who can so ably pat his own back while not actually managing to say anything.
Here is a challenge for you: Please provide a succinct and rational argument why homesexuality and necrophilia are not morally equal.
Comment by Doug from Michigan — January 8, 2008 @ 11:46 am
I have spoken before (as have others, more articulately) of the Random Movement; kids and college students attach themselves to any show or film likely to include a number of awkward pauses and nonsensical jokes. It’s a defensive approach to pop culture, for as you note, if anyone points out how hollow and tiresome it is, its fans can just dismiss it as a joke, and the critic as a fool for not seeing the joke.
I tried a half-dozen times to enjoy Family Guy, incidentally. My chief problem, aside from its complete failure to charm or intrigue me or endear itself to me in any way, is that it never seems to do or say anything clever with its pop cultural references. “Hey, look, I’m Optimus Prime” (or whoever) seems to suffice for its audience…
I don’t envy you your job, by the way. I teach sixth grade, and it has its drawbacks for sure, but I hated college students when I was in college; I can’t imagine dealing with them now.
Ultimately, this piece reminds me of Homerpalooza, where Slacker A noted Homer’s arrival onstage and said, “He’s cool,” to which Slacker B replied, “Dude, are you being sarcastic?”
The inevitable answer: “Man, I don’t even know anymore.”
Comment by Monte from Twin Falls, Idaho — January 8, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
Doug - despite what a ridiculous and morally reprehensible question that is, here it is in one word: “consent”.
Comment by Patrick Schabe — January 8, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
Patrick,
I was asking Mr. McKain.
While your answer may seem reasonable, it is both dishonest and sophomoric.
Give it a little thought and I am sure you can find the obvious flaws in your logic.
Comment by Doug from Michigan — January 8, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
Doug,
To answer your question:
“Homesexuality and necrophilia are not morally equal” because I do not live in a mausoleum. What you do in yours, however, is your own business.
Thanks for reading.
Aaron McKain
Comment by Aaron McKain — January 9, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
Does that guy really not see the resemblance between the same ten fingers he’s using to play bass and the hands of an ape?
Comment by brego from Luxembourg — January 11, 2008 @ 7:41 am
Aaron,
Interesting comment. You take the time to write an article that trashes a guy for having values that are different than your own, yet when asked to defend your own values, you retreat and suggest that all values are relative.
I have read a few of your papers and they all seem to suffer from the same critical fault. You criticize without ever offering your own alternatives. You mistake sarcasm for intellect. Anyone can knock something down, but actually building something requires skill.
Your writing all boils down to this: “Hey everyone! Look at this guy. Oh yeah, he is REAL Cool! Hey guy that I am mocking - NICE PANTS! Maybe we should ALL get some like that!”
The only real difference is that you use larger words. Lots of them, even when they don’t add anything to what you are expressing. Like most people who run around criticizing others, you are clearly pretty insecure. Try writing something that is entirely positive. I think you will quickly begin to realize just how difficult it is. I also think it will make you a better person.
Comment by Doug from Michigan — January 11, 2008 @ 8:09 am
Brego,
I notice the resemblance between my butt and your face. I wonder where you originated?
Comment by Juka from Finland — January 11, 2008 @ 8:13 am
doug,
a) i can’t even believe i’m wasting my time responding to your nonsense
b) you clearly mistake provocation for intellect
c) what’s a crazy reactionary like you doing reading popmatters anyway? you’re clearly not mckain’s intended audience. i’m pretty sure that hate groups have their own websites for garbage like this.
d) i hardly think that mckain’s response to you indicated any sort of “retreat [that] suggest[s] that all values are relative.” i think he was just pointing out that to suggest that necrophilia and homosexuality have anything at all in common is about as outdated a notion as phrenology or the insistence that global warming is a myth. even huckabee, with his family guy values, would agree that your position is just plain ridiculous.
Comment by matilda from the midwest — January 11, 2008 @ 9:01 am
Matilda,
I put forth no position at all. I merely asked the author to support his own. How does asking a question make me a crazy reactionary who belongs in a hate group? When questions become hate speech, I’d suggest you have become more closed minded than the hate groups you apparently disdain.
Perhaps I was reading popmatters because I like music? Perhaps I even value a diversity of opinions and influences. Your reply reminds me of how others might react the first time a black man walks in to their clubhouse.
The more pertinent question might be what the point of the article was. Clearly though, as long as the author is making fun of those that you personally don’t care for, there is no reason to question further. So long as you are in on the joke, it doesn’t matter how obnoxious his drivel.
I can assure you that you have no idea what my attitude towards either homosexuality or necrophilia are. Indeed, my question had nothing whatsoever to do with politics, sex or social preferences. I picked one of dozens of examples where the author chose to sneer at someone else, all the while winking at those who are in on the joke.
I asked a question that I suspected he would not be able to handle and he ran away from it.
But, since you have waded in, please support your position. Why are they not morally equal? So far, you have managed to say because the idea is outdated. Surely you can do better than that?
Comment by Doug from Michigan — January 11, 2008 @ 10:57 am