Entry 2: Connecting class readings, and the Idiocracy to the 2004 Presidential election

 The film Idiocracy, by Mike Judge features many humorous and scarily accurate assessments of American Democracy. Like most Utopian or dystopian tales, the story largely reflects on the time it was written/made, which in this case was during or in the immediate fall out of the Bush V Kerry election. While understanding of the 2004 election has grown in the decades following, at the time of the film one of the major talking points of the race was the “electability” of George W Bush, with much emphasis put on his someone “you'd want to grab a beer with” persona.  What stemmed from that persona was an assumption (and was hoped to be an overreaction) that the American people wanted someone like them to be president.  A horrible idea when one considers that America is one of the most unhealthy, overweight, and poorly educated nations on earth, but a perfect setting for the film Idiocracy. 

One of the cornerstones to George W Bush's electable persona was his plain spoken-Texas accent that hardly ever used political jargon. While his opponent John Kerry was a career Senator, and future Secretary of State who could not speak plainly (or in “average american”) on much of anything, instead Kerry had a habit of switching to "government insider" jargon learned on the floor of the senate. A language that is far from the average American lexicon in every way. The underlying theme within this argument is anti intellectualism, or the idea that sounding intelligent is somehow a bad thing. In Anti-Intellectualism in American Life the author Richard Hofstadter makes this point well, saying “Joe and Jane Six-Pack, distrusts the bookish man, relegates him to a corner well away from the spotlight.”

Also found within this critique of intellectualism is the implication that intellectuals sound “effeminate” or in the film they called they behavior “faggy” to imply a homosexual connotation. In each case even below the layer of anti intellectualism is a layer of sexism- and homophobia, all rooted in fear of the unknown.

The antithesis of the intellectual bookish person leading a state can be found in idiocracy. The character of President Camacho was the most well thought out and  in the context of our class discussion the most “realistic”, he is described as a former Wrestling Champion and porn star who was “elected in a landslide.” These jokes poke fun at the fact that a star from two of the most (Toxic) masculine industries would birth a runaway winner for president. Because those two industries are in fact seen as the opposite of “effeminate and faggy.”

In truth I think that if I had been watching idiocracy with any of the aforementioned philosophers of scholars, they would correctly point out the connections to my modern day. Like the aggression of the state (the police) towards any and all civilians. Which pokes fun at the erosion of yet another position of immense importance that no longer requires intellect. We live in a time that does not praise intellectualism, nor does it emphasize or reward voting. 

    Yes, voting will be mentioned here in connection  to the article we read titled Plato’s Warning: If You Don’t Vote, You Will Be Governed by Idiots. Which connects many of the themes about participation found in the film to the current problems facing our country.  Namely, if those who are able, do not participate, as in they are being “idiots” in the classical term. The film connects these ideas by having the main character be faced with the question of “Lead, follow, or get out of the way” which in 2005 he responds to by always getting out of the way. However after traveling hundreds of years into the future he learns that if everyone who is able gets out of the way, then you get a system run by people who are not able.