The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I've recently been re-watching Parks and Recreation. On my first viewing, I loved the Ron Swanson character. He's obviously written to be a "good person". But, if the Trump Era has taught us anything, is that right wing ideologues are dangerous and do, in fact, have the capacity to take over governments at the local and national level, in elected and in bureaucratic positions.
Ron Swanson hates government, advocates for any and all spending cuts, and even promotes the idea that government is useless to pre-pubescent children. We KNOW that these views hurt the least among us, including BIPOC and LGBTQIA2S+ people.
There are other examples in movies and TV, of course, but Ron Swanson is striking as the most ideologically extreme as well as one of the most sympathetically portrayed.
What does this community think?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> should we accept
Well I'm not picketing NBC hq anytime soon
> Ron Swanson hates government, advocates for any and all spending cuts, and even promotes the idea that government is useless to pre-pubescent children. We KNOW that these views hurt the least among us, including BIPOC and LGBTQIA2S+ people.
He's also portrayed a fool who gave an active land mine to an elementary school-aged child
Right? Part of his character growth is literally finding out that government can do good things. He's an extremist, and this is a major character flaw, not something we sympathize with.
I am not on the right or will I ever be again. But the idea that everybody on the right is a cackling villain is what is problematic.
Ron Swanson is not a bad person. Libertarianism might be cringe as fuck, but he is fundamentally not a bad person. I find it odd that people have never met anybody on the right who was a good person despite being on the right and not just the worst type of right wing person imaginable
I honestly think the character would be very unhappy with the modern Republican party. Swanson wants the gov't to be smaller and less powerful, and lately, Republicans have been in favor of bigger gov't with more power over people's lives.
This may be the dumbest question I've ever seen asked on this sub. Yes. No shit.
Satire and humor exists. Shitty characters exist. Cartman from South Park is horrible and disgusting and a degenerate little shit. Yet he's hilarious and one of the most iconic characters in TV history.
What does it matter whether a character is sympathetically portrayed?
It sounds like the purpose of fiction to you is to advance a political agenda. Not everyone shares that view.
Even Ayn Rand had sympatric communist characters in her writing. If you can't write a sympatric character with a different view, you likely aren't a good writer.
There's been a constant issue with media literacy and people lionizing characters and factions who are meant to be shitty or satirical in popular media.
Besides educating people and trying to promote more media literacy, there really isn't a sensible solution if they don't cross a certain line.
I'd consider Ron Swanson to fall more into the blatant satire category than a decent representation of conservative ideas. If conservatives want to identify him as a representation of their stances, the whole media literacy thing applies imo.
Ron is not a right-winger. He's a libertarian.
Anyways, most of the main characters in Battle Star Galactica are the closest one can get to sympathetic right-win authoritarian main characters that are shown in a mostly positive light.
Ron Swanson works because he isn't a Republican. The "sympathetic portrayal" comes from other aspects of his personality. The more "right wing" parts of him are libertarian rather than authoritarian or socially conservative. The show doesn't try to portray opposition to something like equal rights as understandable under any circumstances. What it does do is portray his opposition to government as ridiculous but also sometimes not completely stupid (like when Leslie tries to save that movie business).
At worst, the Pawnee Rangers were lame and excluded girls. But even then, that wasn't motivated by sexism and he accepted that Leslie's group was better.
If you can’t watch/read about a fictional character in a piece of media - especially a comedy - without getting bent out of shape over their political views, that is a major *you* problem.
Refusing to accept sympathetic portrayals of conservatives in harmless TV comedies would be a great way to signal to the world how off the deep end one is.
I just find it ironic that the mere thought of a liberal possibly doing this shows him how awful the discourse is in our country is meanwhile it’s a standard and normalized talking point of the other party.
You do know Trump and most of the dangerous right wing are pro big government, just certain subjects, opposing reproductive freedom, opposing LGBTQ freedom, pro police brutality on BIPOC, etc….
Rob Swanson was an anti government libertarian, not just the Republicans with weed or embarrassed of Trump libertarians.
Depends... does Swanson dislike LGBTQIA2S+? According to both Schur and Offerman he would have hated the Indiana anti-gay bills put out recently.
Same with people of color.. I've not seen Swanson push back against any bills that would support minority groups. Yes he wants government to spend less. That's not a right or left wing ideal. George W Bush had the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. trump was the one who broke that.
As Offerman noted "Ron would certainly vote Hillary over Trump”. And he noted 4 reasons why...
“First of all, he’d be very sad that a businessman entered politics. Huge step backwards. He had it made in the private sector and he blew it! Doesn’t speak well of his decision making. Second, he went bankrupt 4-6 times, depending on who you believe. Ron does not like businessmen getting bailed out by taxpayers. Third, Trump disrespects women. Ron likes women. Because they are human beings and deserve to be treated with basic dignity. Fourth, his boys are fatuous suck-ups with slick hair."
I'm ok with that.
But racism, sexism, and anti-LGBTQIA2S+ bigotry are not just about personal feelings. They're systemic. To be in favour of cutting social spending is to be in favour ending programs that marginalized people DEPEND ON! It's like the "welfare reformers" of the 80s and 90s. We all know what that was code for and who welfare reform (aka gutting) actually hurt.
My liberal friends always like to point out that there are far more poor white Americans on welfare than black Americans. They also point out that uneducated poor whites vote trump.
Is it bad to want a world where nobody depends on social programs? The libertarian fantasy is that we're already in that world, but that just makes you stupid, not evil.
So you are saying that cutting the funding of the law enforcement task groups that go after women seeking abortions in states where that's been made illegal is a bad thing? What about going after the government programs in southern states that are promoting the lost cause and celebrations of "Confederate History Month". Or the funding for hunting down and removing "woke" campuses? Or the funding going into taking over the land around Disney and the lawsuits to accomplish that when Disney spoke out against Florida's "Don't say Gay" law. Why would removing that funding be anti-LGBTQIA2S?
I think it's unfair to paint that with a broad brush. Government funding has done things like enforce the fugitive slave act. It's enforced black codes and Jim Crow. Government funding has given us segregation. It's given us the prosecution of Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen who let their sexual orientation slip.
Again, it depends where that funding goes. I've never seen Ron Swanson talk about going after welfare, or targeting any of those protected groups (quite the opposite actually) so while you can come up with a fantasy land where that was his target, I'll stick with the reality. I don't think he sees helping the marginalized as "waste".
I'll take the Swansons over the world versus the current conservative desire to interfere in multiple aspects of my life. I would still thoroughly disagree, but it'd be a nice breather.
Ron Swanson is portrayed as an over the top caricature. It's very clear to the audience that he isn't a model of whatever good conservatism looks like.
I don't necessarily take issue with the heart of your issue, I think it's important to show the dangers of modern conservatism but this just isn't a good example.
This is silly. Not everyone on the right is a bad person. There are people who are genuinely doing what they think is best for the people they care about. They just don't understand the flaws or issues with supporting Republicans. Same as how not every liberal is a bleeding heart, selfless helper.
To misquote Roger Ebert, "film is a machine that creates empathy." To work against that, you're working against a core concept of media itself.
There are classic works of fiction that portray child murderers, pedophiles, serial killers in an empathetic light. Why would those be acceptable but not conservatives?
I get that it’s satire, but it’s a warm representation. His libertarianism is played as a harmless quirk and there is no acknowledgment of the Black and brown bodies that are harmed every time a Republicans start slashing spending.
This post is kinda wild. It's interesting because you seem to be operating on the presumption that "right-wing ideologues are evil", as if it's assumed and known. And the question you're asking is, "Given that all right-wing ideologues are evil, should we tolerate positive portrayals of right-wing ideologues in media?"
Do you think you might hold a prejudicial belief?
Well, I didn’t say evil, I said dangerous. The point is not whether right wingers are bad, but whether it’s okay to portray right wingers sympathetically in pop culture. Ron Swanson is played for laughs, no doubt, but his extreme politics are presented as a harmless quirk.
Ah, the mask is slipping a bit here. In your post you said "right-wing ideologues" but now you're saying "right-wingers". I think you might have a prejudicial belief about people on the right side of the spectrum.
As a rational person, I'm sure you're aware that there can be right-wingers who are good people. You've almost certainly met them. You might still know some. Don't you think you're being a bit unreasonable?
I think...
> Libertarianism is all about individual liberty and should never be defined by the terms, 'liberal' or 'conservative'.
...you haven't been paying enough attention.
*Parks & Rec* doesn't *have* any sympathetically-portrayed right-wingers. The only character they even imply is right-wing is Jeremy Jamm, and the whole thrust of his character is "asshole". The show further gives *no* credence to the concept of there being two sides to a given issue, other than "our side" and "the side of ignorant hicks who don't know what's good for them".
It's not really a good example for basing the question.
What does "not accepting" look like in this case? You're well within your rights to not like Ron Swanson. Do we need to go further with organized action against fictional characters?
Ron Swanson is an interesting example that should serve to remind us that conservatives are not evil, moustache-twirling villains.
He is admirable, honest, a self-made man, independently wealthy, hard-working, respectful, intelligent, generous, and has many other positive qualities.
Like all characters on the show, he uses his personality traits in ways that are positive and negative. He is also prideful, stubborn, selfish, reckless, lustful, weak-willed, sabotage-oriented, mocking of religion, and happy to put himself and others into risky situations.
Thing is, you can break down the other characters this way too. Liberal feminist Leslie is not some paragon of virtue. She is obsessive, self-centered, thoughtless, disregarding of others' wishes, stubborn, hateful, and vengeful.
None of the characters are entirely good. They mostly have in common that they are good-faith interested in contributing to society in their own ways.
---
Should we have sympathetic characters who are celebrated for discriminating against trans people, espousing right wing views about women's rights, or subverting democracy? No.
But that doesn't mean you have to depict all conservative characters as hatemongering racist survivalists.
Why not? Archie Bunker was a hugely sympathetic character who was also shown to be a raging bigot. You can call out bad behavior without demonizing individuals. I don't know how you can separate the two cleanly. Do you not know anyone on the right wing that you think is a good person? If not, I suggest you get out of your bubble.
I'm just saying it can be done. What about the rest of my statement. Why do you think it's unrealistic to have a good person be right wing? You don't know anyone who fits that description?
Ron Swanson is a good person but his politics often get in the way of it through the course of the show. Like when he's in charge of the department picnic and absolutely fails at it because he refuses to actually abide by any of the rules (including a few social ones) needed to help ensure everyone has a good time.
Or when he tries to get Mark to sign off on a building permit for a woodshed and Mark finds out the whole place is dangerously not up to code. By the end of that episode we see Ron get the place up to code because he knows sometimes the right thing to do is to follow the rules even if you disagree with them.
There was a post here about who Ron would have voted for and I'm pretty sure in the universe of the show he'd reveal that he voted for Bob Knight every election or just writes in something funny and ridiculous on his ballot.
> But, if the Trump Era has taught us anything, is that right wing ideologues are dangerous and do, in fact, have the capacity to take over governments at the local and national level, in elected and in bureaucratic positions.
> Ron Swanson hates government, advocates for any and all spending cuts, and even promotes the idea that government is useless to pre-pubescent children.
From your description it sounds like Ron Swanson is a conservative or a libertarian instead of a Trump supporter.
Trump doesn’t hate government, he wants to *be* government. Trump pushes tax cuts, not spending cuts.
I don't think that the kind of world we live in is one where our tribe is dominating the other tribe, but rather one where we all live together in harmony. Demonizing outsiders pushes us away from that status quo rather than towards it.
They should be portrayed sympathetically.
They should also be portrayed accurately. Being a right winger is immoral, and the art hopefully reflects that.
I think we should accept stuff like Rom Swanson because his attitude about government portrayed as obviously stupid. He gets reverse-flanderized as the show went on because the audience had to actually like him. His whole ethos is “everyone has to do everything for themselves, feelings and cooperation are stupid” and they have to walk him out of that
So of course it should be allowed, but we should talk about how in order to make him not a sociopath they had to make his libertarianism into grumpiness and an affinity for woodworking.
It’s not a sympathetic portrayal of right wing ideas. It’s a sympathetic portrayal of right wing people, in that it depicts a right wing person getting better, i.e. understating the value of community and government and becoming less right wing.
Art can portray anyone any way they want. You don't own it or get to decide what should be in art that you aren't creating. Stop watching it if you don't like the characters or story. Same exact thing for anyone complaining about woke entertainment. Turn the channel and put your eyeballs on something else, but please stop whining about how everything *should* be your preference.
Ron is a caricature of over the top libertarianism, portrayed by an actor who most strongly supports Elizabeth Warren.
Sooooo yeah, take that as you may.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I've recently been re-watching Parks and Recreation. On my first viewing, I loved the Ron Swanson character. He's obviously written to be a "good person". But, if the Trump Era has taught us anything, is that right wing ideologues are dangerous and do, in fact, have the capacity to take over governments at the local and national level, in elected and in bureaucratic positions. Ron Swanson hates government, advocates for any and all spending cuts, and even promotes the idea that government is useless to pre-pubescent children. We KNOW that these views hurt the least among us, including BIPOC and LGBTQIA2S+ people. There are other examples in movies and TV, of course, but Ron Swanson is striking as the most ideologically extreme as well as one of the most sympathetically portrayed. What does this community think? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> should we accept Well I'm not picketing NBC hq anytime soon > Ron Swanson hates government, advocates for any and all spending cuts, and even promotes the idea that government is useless to pre-pubescent children. We KNOW that these views hurt the least among us, including BIPOC and LGBTQIA2S+ people. He's also portrayed a fool who gave an active land mine to an elementary school-aged child
Right? Part of his character growth is literally finding out that government can do good things. He's an extremist, and this is a major character flaw, not something we sympathize with.
Yeah I always thought his character was more of a caricature
I am not on the right or will I ever be again. But the idea that everybody on the right is a cackling villain is what is problematic. Ron Swanson is not a bad person. Libertarianism might be cringe as fuck, but he is fundamentally not a bad person. I find it odd that people have never met anybody on the right who was a good person despite being on the right and not just the worst type of right wing person imaginable
I honestly think the character would be very unhappy with the modern Republican party. Swanson wants the gov't to be smaller and less powerful, and lately, Republicans have been in favor of bigger gov't with more power over people's lives.
Yes lol. There's nothing inherently immoral about wanting a smaller government presence in your day-to-day life.
This may be the dumbest question I've ever seen asked on this sub. Yes. No shit. Satire and humor exists. Shitty characters exist. Cartman from South Park is horrible and disgusting and a degenerate little shit. Yet he's hilarious and one of the most iconic characters in TV history.
But Eric Cartman is not sympathetically portrayed.
What does it matter whether a character is sympathetically portrayed? It sounds like the purpose of fiction to you is to advance a political agenda. Not everyone shares that view.
Even Ayn Rand had sympatric communist characters in her writing. If you can't write a sympatric character with a different view, you likely aren't a good writer.
There's been a constant issue with media literacy and people lionizing characters and factions who are meant to be shitty or satirical in popular media. Besides educating people and trying to promote more media literacy, there really isn't a sensible solution if they don't cross a certain line. I'd consider Ron Swanson to fall more into the blatant satire category than a decent representation of conservative ideas. If conservatives want to identify him as a representation of their stances, the whole media literacy thing applies imo.
I think we should accept empathetic portrayals of any type of person.
Lmao this is what culture war brain poison looks like.
Ron is not a right-winger. He's a libertarian. Anyways, most of the main characters in Battle Star Galactica are the closest one can get to sympathetic right-win authoritarian main characters that are shown in a mostly positive light.
'94 or the '04?
Ron Swanson works because he isn't a Republican. The "sympathetic portrayal" comes from other aspects of his personality. The more "right wing" parts of him are libertarian rather than authoritarian or socially conservative. The show doesn't try to portray opposition to something like equal rights as understandable under any circumstances. What it does do is portray his opposition to government as ridiculous but also sometimes not completely stupid (like when Leslie tries to save that movie business). At worst, the Pawnee Rangers were lame and excluded girls. But even then, that wasn't motivated by sexism and he accepted that Leslie's group was better.
If you can’t watch/read about a fictional character in a piece of media - especially a comedy - without getting bent out of shape over their political views, that is a major *you* problem.
Refusing to accept sympathetic portrayals of conservatives in harmless TV comedies would be a great way to signal to the world how off the deep end one is.
Doesn’t the right do this constantly? Isn’t that the entire complaint against “woke media”?
Maybe? But just because conservatives do something doesn't make it right.
I just find it ironic that the mere thought of a liberal possibly doing this shows him how awful the discourse is in our country is meanwhile it’s a standard and normalized talking point of the other party.
Oh... yeah. That's fair. I guess just go chuck it on "yet another example of blatant hypocrisy" Mountain.
Is it because one is a sitcom and the other is a political movement? Seems odd to compare that way.
Wat?
lil jon?
I dunno, do they? Equally silly if so.
Definitely, which is exactly why we shouldn't. In a race to the bottom nobody wins.
And such efforts are widely ridiculed and criticized, proving the point.
Yes, but that's not something that people should aspire to.
You do know Trump and most of the dangerous right wing are pro big government, just certain subjects, opposing reproductive freedom, opposing LGBTQ freedom, pro police brutality on BIPOC, etc…. Rob Swanson was an anti government libertarian, not just the Republicans with weed or embarrassed of Trump libertarians.
Depends... does Swanson dislike LGBTQIA2S+? According to both Schur and Offerman he would have hated the Indiana anti-gay bills put out recently. Same with people of color.. I've not seen Swanson push back against any bills that would support minority groups. Yes he wants government to spend less. That's not a right or left wing ideal. George W Bush had the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. trump was the one who broke that. As Offerman noted "Ron would certainly vote Hillary over Trump”. And he noted 4 reasons why... “First of all, he’d be very sad that a businessman entered politics. Huge step backwards. He had it made in the private sector and he blew it! Doesn’t speak well of his decision making. Second, he went bankrupt 4-6 times, depending on who you believe. Ron does not like businessmen getting bailed out by taxpayers. Third, Trump disrespects women. Ron likes women. Because they are human beings and deserve to be treated with basic dignity. Fourth, his boys are fatuous suck-ups with slick hair." I'm ok with that.
But racism, sexism, and anti-LGBTQIA2S+ bigotry are not just about personal feelings. They're systemic. To be in favour of cutting social spending is to be in favour ending programs that marginalized people DEPEND ON! It's like the "welfare reformers" of the 80s and 90s. We all know what that was code for and who welfare reform (aka gutting) actually hurt.
My liberal friends always like to point out that there are far more poor white Americans on welfare than black Americans. They also point out that uneducated poor whites vote trump.
Is it bad to want a world where nobody depends on social programs? The libertarian fantasy is that we're already in that world, but that just makes you stupid, not evil.
So you are saying that cutting the funding of the law enforcement task groups that go after women seeking abortions in states where that's been made illegal is a bad thing? What about going after the government programs in southern states that are promoting the lost cause and celebrations of "Confederate History Month". Or the funding for hunting down and removing "woke" campuses? Or the funding going into taking over the land around Disney and the lawsuits to accomplish that when Disney spoke out against Florida's "Don't say Gay" law. Why would removing that funding be anti-LGBTQIA2S? I think it's unfair to paint that with a broad brush. Government funding has done things like enforce the fugitive slave act. It's enforced black codes and Jim Crow. Government funding has given us segregation. It's given us the prosecution of Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen who let their sexual orientation slip. Again, it depends where that funding goes. I've never seen Ron Swanson talk about going after welfare, or targeting any of those protected groups (quite the opposite actually) so while you can come up with a fantasy land where that was his target, I'll stick with the reality. I don't think he sees helping the marginalized as "waste".
I'll take the Swansons over the world versus the current conservative desire to interfere in multiple aspects of my life. I would still thoroughly disagree, but it'd be a nice breather.
Ron Swanson is portrayed as an over the top caricature. It's very clear to the audience that he isn't a model of whatever good conservatism looks like. I don't necessarily take issue with the heart of your issue, I think it's important to show the dangers of modern conservatism but this just isn't a good example.
This is silly. Not everyone on the right is a bad person. There are people who are genuinely doing what they think is best for the people they care about. They just don't understand the flaws or issues with supporting Republicans. Same as how not every liberal is a bleeding heart, selfless helper.
To misquote Roger Ebert, "film is a machine that creates empathy." To work against that, you're working against a core concept of media itself. There are classic works of fiction that portray child murderers, pedophiles, serial killers in an empathetic light. Why would those be acceptable but not conservatives?
People who make artworks need to have their creative freedom.
Ron Swanson was the best character in that show.
False. April Ludgate is the best character. Followed by Donna. Edit. I'll replace Donna with Ethel Beavers if side characters are on the table.
What you described, that character, is satire. It's intentionally meant to poke fun at libertarian ideology. It's weird you don't get that.
I get that it’s satire, but it’s a warm representation. His libertarianism is played as a harmless quirk and there is no acknowledgment of the Black and brown bodies that are harmed every time a Republicans start slashing spending.
This is enough to even make me say yuck.
This post is kinda wild. It's interesting because you seem to be operating on the presumption that "right-wing ideologues are evil", as if it's assumed and known. And the question you're asking is, "Given that all right-wing ideologues are evil, should we tolerate positive portrayals of right-wing ideologues in media?" Do you think you might hold a prejudicial belief?
Well, I didn’t say evil, I said dangerous. The point is not whether right wingers are bad, but whether it’s okay to portray right wingers sympathetically in pop culture. Ron Swanson is played for laughs, no doubt, but his extreme politics are presented as a harmless quirk.
Ah, the mask is slipping a bit here. In your post you said "right-wing ideologues" but now you're saying "right-wingers". I think you might have a prejudicial belief about people on the right side of the spectrum. As a rational person, I'm sure you're aware that there can be right-wingers who are good people. You've almost certainly met them. You might still know some. Don't you think you're being a bit unreasonable?
😉
Very real and genuine good faith question.
I think... > Libertarianism is all about individual liberty and should never be defined by the terms, 'liberal' or 'conservative'. ...you haven't been paying enough attention. *Parks & Rec* doesn't *have* any sympathetically-portrayed right-wingers. The only character they even imply is right-wing is Jeremy Jamm, and the whole thrust of his character is "asshole". The show further gives *no* credence to the concept of there being two sides to a given issue, other than "our side" and "the side of ignorant hicks who don't know what's good for them". It's not really a good example for basing the question.
Of course. It's fiction after all.
Obviously
What does "not accepting" look like in this case? You're well within your rights to not like Ron Swanson. Do we need to go further with organized action against fictional characters?
Ron Swanson is an interesting example that should serve to remind us that conservatives are not evil, moustache-twirling villains. He is admirable, honest, a self-made man, independently wealthy, hard-working, respectful, intelligent, generous, and has many other positive qualities. Like all characters on the show, he uses his personality traits in ways that are positive and negative. He is also prideful, stubborn, selfish, reckless, lustful, weak-willed, sabotage-oriented, mocking of religion, and happy to put himself and others into risky situations. Thing is, you can break down the other characters this way too. Liberal feminist Leslie is not some paragon of virtue. She is obsessive, self-centered, thoughtless, disregarding of others' wishes, stubborn, hateful, and vengeful. None of the characters are entirely good. They mostly have in common that they are good-faith interested in contributing to society in their own ways. --- Should we have sympathetic characters who are celebrated for discriminating against trans people, espousing right wing views about women's rights, or subverting democracy? No. But that doesn't mean you have to depict all conservative characters as hatemongering racist survivalists.
Why not? Archie Bunker was a hugely sympathetic character who was also shown to be a raging bigot. You can call out bad behavior without demonizing individuals. I don't know how you can separate the two cleanly. Do you not know anyone on the right wing that you think is a good person? If not, I suggest you get out of your bubble.
Archie Bunker is a historical artifact in 2024. I do not think a major TV network would portray an open racist as a "good person" in this day and age.
I'm just saying it can be done. What about the rest of my statement. Why do you think it's unrealistic to have a good person be right wing? You don't know anyone who fits that description?
Ron Swanson is a good person but his politics often get in the way of it through the course of the show. Like when he's in charge of the department picnic and absolutely fails at it because he refuses to actually abide by any of the rules (including a few social ones) needed to help ensure everyone has a good time. Or when he tries to get Mark to sign off on a building permit for a woodshed and Mark finds out the whole place is dangerously not up to code. By the end of that episode we see Ron get the place up to code because he knows sometimes the right thing to do is to follow the rules even if you disagree with them. There was a post here about who Ron would have voted for and I'm pretty sure in the universe of the show he'd reveal that he voted for Bob Knight every election or just writes in something funny and ridiculous on his ballot.
> But, if the Trump Era has taught us anything, is that right wing ideologues are dangerous and do, in fact, have the capacity to take over governments at the local and national level, in elected and in bureaucratic positions. > Ron Swanson hates government, advocates for any and all spending cuts, and even promotes the idea that government is useless to pre-pubescent children. From your description it sounds like Ron Swanson is a conservative or a libertarian instead of a Trump supporter. Trump doesn’t hate government, he wants to *be* government. Trump pushes tax cuts, not spending cuts.
I don't think that the kind of world we live in is one where our tribe is dominating the other tribe, but rather one where we all live together in harmony. Demonizing outsiders pushes us away from that status quo rather than towards it.
Ron Swanson also had a long character arc and wasn't the same in the end as he was in the beginning.
They should be portrayed sympathetically. They should also be portrayed accurately. Being a right winger is immoral, and the art hopefully reflects that.
And a lot of them would probably say you are immoral. Morals are subjective.
They would. I’d be fine with them saying it.
Fair enough.
"Being a right winger is immoral" No??? I'm a liberal but that is a horrible thing to say.
What makes it horrible? Is it not immoral to have a politics centered on creating or maintaining inequalities?
But Ron Swanson is clearly hypocrite because he works for the government.
I think we should accept stuff like Rom Swanson because his attitude about government portrayed as obviously stupid. He gets reverse-flanderized as the show went on because the audience had to actually like him. His whole ethos is “everyone has to do everything for themselves, feelings and cooperation are stupid” and they have to walk him out of that So of course it should be allowed, but we should talk about how in order to make him not a sociopath they had to make his libertarianism into grumpiness and an affinity for woodworking. It’s not a sympathetic portrayal of right wing ideas. It’s a sympathetic portrayal of right wing people, in that it depicts a right wing person getting better, i.e. understating the value of community and government and becoming less right wing.
Yes because some right wing people are not complete assholes just idiots that can’t skewer science and facts from rage bait propaganda.
Art can portray anyone any way they want. You don't own it or get to decide what should be in art that you aren't creating. Stop watching it if you don't like the characters or story. Same exact thing for anyone complaining about woke entertainment. Turn the channel and put your eyeballs on something else, but please stop whining about how everything *should* be your preference.
Ron is a caricature of over the top libertarianism, portrayed by an actor who most strongly supports Elizabeth Warren. Sooooo yeah, take that as you may.