How controversial would a TV show about freedom fighters fighting a neocon dictatorship be in post 9/11 America?
- Thread starter CmdrShep2154
- Start date
That’s more a critique of the Christian Right and evangelical conservatism than neoconservatism. One can be both but the main focus of The Handmaid’s Tale is on religion driving oppression whereas an anti-neocon show would center on foreign policy militarism driving civil liberties abuses and/or war crimes abroad.
I think your defintion is more or less accurate, with a couple of caveats...
The neo-cons are not uniformly social conservative, in the way that someone like Pat Robertson was. You do have the whole "liberal who got mugged" thing, which plays into fears of social breakdown, but they weren't generally identified with active opposition to abortion and gay rights. (And people like Hitchens were decidely liberal on gay rights, at least.)
I'll also say that "fighting in wars" is a little too broad, because some Republicans, eg. Pat Buchanan, were VERY MUCH in favour of fighting in certain wars, but not the mideast wars that the neo-cons favoured(see my exchange with Blue Box above). I interpret the OP as asking specifically for a post-9/11 show, obviously focused on a US dictatorship that responds to 9/11-style attacks in the same way that Bush and his neo-con allies did. I don't think anything that specific was going on in The X-Files.
As for my definition of "neo-conservativism", see post 17 of this thread.
Last edited:
I always had the impression that Buchanan was very much an old-school isolationist in the mold of Lindbergh's American First movement pre-12/11/41. As for Hitchens, I read he originally was a Trotskyite, believe it or not. The one Democrat who really started the whole neocon thing was Scoop Jackson who was very much pro-Israel and pro-Vietnam War and strongly favored huge military increases. Many familiar neocons started their careers working in Jackson's staff in Washington. Richard Perle started out as Jackson's administrative assistant and Frank Gaffney started out as a go-fer in Jackson's office.
I seem to recall the Siege playing on USA some time around 9/11. My memory maybe incorrect, but I could swear it played on cable less a month after the attack. I remember mostly because someone had posted a tv ad saying Godzilla movies wouldn't be played on tv for some time due to the destruction of buildings and I thought "why is this (the siege) showing so soon and I can't watch my (Godzilla) on tv?"
Anyway, couldn't Firefly be seen considered as such a program? And of course, we know how that ended.
In the book and the 1990 movie, there is no character, as I recall, who seems to represent directly any politician active at the time. And it isn't as if those works were created against a real-life background of, say, the secularist terrorists having recently killed thousands of Americans in one shot, and a Religious Right-oriented president waging battle against them.
I haven't seen the more recent TV show based on The Handmaid's Tale. I know the show's Democratic fans generally take it to be about current events, though if it's like the book and the movie, there are no direct parallels to real-life people.
BigBlueBox
Banned
The biggest names in early neoconservativism like Irving Kristol were all originally Trotskyists
If made between 2002-2004, very controversial. This was a period the US was At War and any opposition was denounced as unpatriotic at best, outright traitorous at worst. The Dixie Chicks were blacklisted for saying they were "ashamed" of President Bush; What a Girl Wants had its poster edited to remove a "V" sign, under the belief it would be interpreted as a call for peace. It's difficult to imagine the frenzy of this period, especially if you never experienced it, but it was very, very dire. I don't think a script like this would even get picked up.
After that? It'll ignite outrage in conservative circles, but be seen as a reasonable or even salient critique elsewhere. Again this might be harder to remember if you didn't live in the period, but the public was getting fed up with the Bush admin's "if you're not with us, you're against us" mantra years before he actually left office. For example, Nine Inch Nails' Year Zero— a 2007 release— didn't pull any punches and not only passed without controversy, but was praised for its dystopian depiction of Bush policies taken to their endpoint. You could definitely get away with a show with a villainous neocon regime circa 2007–08.
After that? It'll ignite outrage in conservative circles, but be seen as a reasonable or even salient critique elsewhere. Again this might be harder to remember if you didn't live in the period, but the public was getting fed up with the Bush admin's "if you're not with us, you're against us" mantra years before he actually left office. For example, Nine Inch Nails' Year Zero— a 2007 release— didn't pull any punches and not only passed without controversy, but was praised for its dystopian depiction of Bush policies taken to their endpoint. You could definitely get away with a show with a villainous neocon regime circa 2007–08.
Basically agree with all of this. But I still think you might run into trouble, even post-2004, if you had the good guys seeking the violent overthrow of a villainous government consisting of obvious stand-ins for real life people. Because the message is essentially going to be Bush And His Cabinet Need To Be Taken Out With Bullets.
Granted, this probably has less to do with the time-period, and more to do with just a general taboo(not entirely unreasonable) against cheering on the potential murder of government officials.
Check out the plotline for Bully And Billy. I remember some anti-TV violence crusaders at the time complaining that it showed the attempted shooting of an American president, even though the killing is thwarted, and the gunman is clearly meant to be viewed as the bad guy. This, of course, was not too long after the shooting of Ronald Reagan.
I should've haha. I mean I've been rewatching it on Netflix.
It's a huge shame it didn't get a full two seasons.
This is a good point. It's definitely going to depend on exactly how the regime is portrayed, and the more direct the analogue is the more controversy it would attract. If it's, like, an alternate history where the then-present 2007 is already a dystopian dictatorship nominally ruled by one President Gregor Shrub but effectively controlled by scheming Vice President Rich Chaney, that would definitely be a step too far. Future dystopias (like Year Zero or even V for Vendetta) that extrapolate from Bush-era policies and trends but don't damn specific individuals would be safe, however.
Freedom (TV series) - Wikipedia
As was said before, if its 2004 or later it has a chance of hitting a niche audience if its vague enough in terms of the leaders being fought. Years later its lauded as "underappreciated" and "ahead of its time"
If it's too close to 9/11 or too close to reality its remembered as being a really bad idea that was poorly thought out.
If it's too close to 9/11 or too close to reality its remembered as being a really bad idea that was poorly thought out.
But how can a political movement match your definition of neoconservative, or any definition of neoconservative, if it exists in a fictional society governed by a triumverate, and not in the United States of America? I don't understand how anyone in your triumverate example could be called a neocon.
Well, imagine an administration with the same policies as the Bush admnistration, but run by three people instead of one. I'm not sure that that would negate the ideas of neo-conservativism. I could write a critique of socialism that takes place in a constitutional monarchy eg. Sweden), but I could really intend it to be about French socialism, since to a large extent, the principles of socialism don't depend on things like monarchy vs republic. FWIW, the country in my proposed show WAS supposed to be the USA, post-coup d'etat.
And anyway, my overall point was that too much jigging around with the real-life situation WOULD, in fact, damage the neo-con character of the fictional dystopia, eg. you couldn't really remove their preoccuation with Israel, since that's central to their belief system. IOW, the OP's challenge would be very difficult to carry out with the required degree of encryption
Last edited: